Site Mobile Navigation

A 2009 Chevy Malibu Destroys a 1959 Bel Air — Literally

It was no way to treat a senior citizen: sending a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air hurtling into a collision with a 2009 Malibu at 40 miles per hour. As the video produced by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows, the outcome wasn’t pretty, either.

The windshield dislodges, the driver’s door opens and the front half of the Bel Air goes through something between crumbling and what looks like imploding as the dummy in the driver’s seat flies around like Peter Pan.

“The Bel Air collapsed,” said David Zuby, the senior vice president for the institute’s vehicle research center in Virginia. “The area in which the driver was sitting collapsed completely around him.”

The test was to mark the 50th anniversary of the I.I.H.S., a group funded by the insurance industry. The idea was to show how much automotive safety has progressed in five decades.

While some people still think that the big steel bodies and sturdy frames of old cars meant stronger vehicles and good crash protection, the institute’s crash test shows that that just isn’t the case, Mr. Zuby said. Sophisticated engineering and high-strength steel give modern vehicles a huge advantage.

Here’s how the institute described what happened to the Bel Air:

“This car had no seat belts or air bags. Dummy movement wasn’t well controlled, and there was far too much upward and rearward movement of the steering wheel. The dummy’s head struck the steering wheel rim and hub and then the roof and unpadded metal instrument panel to the left of the steering wheel.

“During rebound, the dummy’s head remained in contact with the roof and slid rearward and somewhat inward. The windshield was completely dislodged from the car and the driver door opened during the crash, both presenting a risk of ejection. In addition, the front bench seat was torn away from the floor on the driver side.”

The I.I.H.S. has crash-tested hundreds of vehicles, and Mr. Zuby said he doesn’t know of any that performed worse than the Bel Air.

The institute rates vehicles as Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Poor. The group looks at how well the structure of the vehicle held up and the likelihood of injuries to the head, chest and legs. The Bel Air got a Poor rating in every category.

The 2009 Malibu got Good in every category but the one for the left leg and foot, which was rated Marginal.

And what does this mean to owners of 1959 Bel Airs? Mr. Zuby said driving in a parade was probably safe because the speeds were slow and it was a controlled environment.

“I wouldn’t recommend that anybody use an antique car like this for their daily driving around,” he said.

Update: In comments, several readers have asked whether the Bel Air had an engine. Christopher Jensen addressed that issue in a followup post here.

I’m really surprised by this. I knew older cars from that era were def. not as safe as modern ones, but I always thought the great big hunking cars were like tanks… guess not.
By the way, I love their website. Something about seeing car crashes in slow mo’… fascinating.

“The 2009 Malibu got Good in every category but the one for the left leg and foot, which was rated Marginal.”

Here is some additional information from the I.I.H.S. report on the 2009 Malibu::

Restraints/dummy kinematics — Dummy movement was well controlled. After the dummy moved forward into the airbag, it rebounded into the seat without its head coming close to any stiff structure that could cause injury.

Injury measures — Measures taken from the head, neck, and chest indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions in a crash of this severity. A high acceleration was recorded on the left foot, indicating that foot injuries would be possible.

Did the Bel Air have an engine? I’ve seen this on other automotive websites and discussion involved questioning if the Bel Air had an engine, which would have prevented the Malibu from slicing the Bel Air so much.

I love old cars, but boy, I must admit that structural design has come a long, long way from the 50/60/70’s. My ’64 Mustang was extremely cool but it had no consideration for passenger safety. I sold it when my kids were born.

I SEE THAT HUGE RUST CLOUD AND WONDER WHAT 49 YEARS OF WEATHER DID TO THE FRAME AND SUPPORTS . SINCE THERE WAS NO STANDARD V8 MOTOR UNDER THE HOOD, THE ONLY THING IN THE 09’S WAY WAS RUSTED SHEET METAL AND GUTTED ,WEAKENED FRAME ! FROM THE DAMAGE ON THE 09, I’D CALL IT A DRAW .

the ’59 is still the better car, no two ways about it. put the two side by side and what you get, far more than how far “safety” has progressed, is how much cheaper and tackier our society has become. there’s just no class or style anymore. what a shame to ruin such a beautiful artifact for the sake of self-congratulations.

What's Next

About

A team of New York Times contributors blogs about news, trends and all things automotive. Check back for insight, photos, reviews of cars and more. And remember to join the conversation — you can comment on the cars, offer your own reviews, and post questions in our reader comment area.

Archive

Recent Posts

The regular features of this blog, including Monday Motorsports, the Wheelies news briefs and reports on auto industry developments including vehicle recalls and technology updates, can now be found on the Automobiles Web page.Read more…

General Motors hasn’t offered a diesel passenger car since the diesel-powered Chevette chugged unceremoniously into its lineup in 1986. But the company is back with its efficient Chevrolet Cruze Turbo Diesel.Read more…